About your Search

20130211
20130219
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
, legislation that keeps the government funded and running. he wants to keep that separate from sequestration. explain why and what might happen on that. >> i think it is a stop-gap measure. it is not a real bill or appropriation bill that funds the government. it is basically avoiding government shut down. i don't think mr. rogers was to have a discussion on how to avoid the sequestered until we get very close to a government shutdown if people cannot agree on which to do it. one thing we did discuss, that is important for people to understand is that the sequestered woodcuts overall government spending by $1.20 trillion for the next nine years. this year, it would be $85 billion. how rodgers, the way he would present, he would write that the government would be funded the way it was last year, but if the sequestered takes effect, it would cut off -- >> a big part of this process? >> it is unclear exactly how all of this will work. part of it is that sometimes, if you talk to some of the people, the new were more ardent er moreatives, -- the new wer conservative members, they take the view t
's not a real bill that funds -- it's not an appropriations bill that funds the government. it's a way of basically avoiding government shutdown and i think the reason mr. rogers doesn't want to have a discussion on how to avoid the sequester is because, again, it's very close to a government shutdown because people can't agree on a way to do it. one thing we didn't discuss i think that's actually important for people to understand is that the sequester actually would affect a continuing resolution because the sequester would cut overall government spending by, you know, $1.2 trillion over the next nine years and this year would be $85 billion. so i think hall rogers, the way he would present it would be he would write -- the government would be funded the same level it was funded last year but a sequester takes effect, it's going to cut off the amount of -- >> the amount of money the appropriators have to work with, andy taylor, are they a part of this process? >> well, it's unclear how all this will work and part of it is, as roxannea and i were discussing before we talked to the cha
government services. -- and core government services. the cuts required a harm middle- class families, seniors, and the most vulnerable. the president believes these indiscriminate across-the-board cuts are not ours possible way -- are not a responsible way to address our goals of balance deficit reduction. we have made significant progress in this regard. we have an active deficit reductions over the past twothe vast majority of this progress has come in the form of spending cuts. roughly three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in additional revenue. the president believes we need to have a balanced approach that includes a spending cuts, but also includes commonsense tax reform that can raise additional revenue. as part of the american -- act president would have to issue this a question should date was delayed from january 2 to march 1, 2013. with $24 billion in deficit reduction split evenly, this approach set an important precedent of avoiding sequestration and having a balance deficit reduction that combines additional revenue and spending cuts. should congress faile
. you see strife in a number of places. you see governments that are former autocratic governments that are failed or failing, creating further instability. the instability is at issue there. again, they are concerned about the iranian in the region. the region, which adds to the complexity ty ae. and of course, there's this specific issue at syria and continuing work we've got to do in afghanistan as well. same number of of things added together. also, there is a persistent bad from elements like al qaeda and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula that has the ability to generate a threat to the homeland. so that is very, very important. >> are we going to be able to meet those with the troops that are projected to be there? are we going to accomplish anation? we've had so many families in this country sacrifice. is it going to be worth it to that? i know you do this every day. how do you look at family is and say to time, we are going to pull out, maybe at levels they think might be dangerously low as i am geing information on this. how are you able to do that? when do we reach a holl
at all we will be in fighting the government step-by-step to come ever closer to disarming the people, leaving only the police and military with firearms. the supreme court took stern policy choices off the table and cleared the path for reasonable regulations to be enacted without fear those choices would open the door to a limited government control or be in peril by exaggerated interpretations of the second amendment. "there is no longer any basis for such doomsday proclamations." justice elliott said it at the end of this opinion -- justice scalia said it at the end of his opinion. the court was explicit in saying what some of those tools include. they include conditions and qualifications on the transfer of firearms to keep them out of dangerous hands. they include long standing measures to keep firearms out sensitive places. they include complete bans of firearms that are "not typically possessed by law abiding citizens." and firearms that are dangerous such as m-16 rifles and the like. they include other regulations designed to protect public safety without cutting into the cor
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5